So, choose another ruling mafia, and go where you are treated best. — Tarskian

You have no frickin' clue, have you?

You have no frickin' clue, have you? — Vera Mont

If you don't know how to pull it off, you may want to spend $13.99 on the introductory Udemy course:

https://www.udemy.com/course/how-to-become-a-digital-nomad-work-from-anywhere

How To Become a Digital Nomad & Work From Anywhere

Requirements

- A desire to live and work from anywhere on your own term

Description

= Discover the complete A-Z resource for becoming a highly successful digital nomad in this 16 hour online course.

= Learn how to live and work from anywhere in the world while having time to adventure, explore and have more fun.

(The world has rapidly changed, job security is no longer real and the opportunity to work online is greater than ever before)

$13.99
Original Price$19.99
Discount30% off

The digital nomad lifestyle works out fine for a lot of people:

https://andysto.com/how-many-digital-nomads-are-there/

The Number of Digital Nomads: Exploring the Statistics

According to data collected by Nomad List and published in 2024, the numbers are much higher. They estimate that there are already almost 80 million digital nomads worldwide.

According to Enterprise Apps Today, in 2023 there were 35 million digital nomads worldwide.

I am confident that most digital nomads face at least some challenges in order to make it work. But then again, that is exactly what life is about: overcoming even difficult challenges.

Just don't get seriously ill.

Just don't get seriously ill. — LuckyR

A medical bill here in SE Asia is typically a lot cheaper than your copay in the US or in the EU.

Even with the most generous insurance, you will still pay a lot more out of pocket than me.

Pharmaceutical products at the pharmacy are typically a hundred times cheaper here -- the market is dominated by generics -- unless you are into expensive brand names.

But then again, even brand name products are much cheaper than in the US or the EU. Global pharma sells their products at less than half the price here -- Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and so on. I simply pay a lot less than you for exactly the same stuff. Just Google for the illegal "Canadian pharmacy online" industry and look at their rock-bottom prices. Here, it is even much cheaper than that, and by a lot.

Furthermore, we get a lot of medical tourism over here.

People flying over from the US or EU to get their teeth fixed, or to get surgery such as a knee or a hip replacement at one of the private hospitals, because the total bill -- including airplane tickets and hotel -- will be much lower over here.

If there is one place in the world where you do not want to get seriously ill, it is the USA. You will probably go bankrupt, even when you have complete insurance cover. It is in the US that sick people are doomed, not here.

https://www.medicaltourismco.com/medical-tourism-in-mexico/

Cost of Medical Procedures in Mexico

You can really benefit from the affordable healthcare in Mexico. On average, medical treatments here can be up to 80% cheaper than in the US. Whether you need dental work or bariatric surgery, you'll find more budget-friendly options in Mexico.

Plus, the quality of medical services in Mexico is just as good as in the US.[4] Want to know the medical tourism Mexico prices for your desired treatment? Take a look at the table below!

My point is that philosophy as a way of life (P. Hadot) is a rational-reflective form of "spirituality" (i.e. daily ego/self-transparency to oneself) and not, as you suggest narrowly, necessarily non-spiritual. True, philosophy is not 'helpful' to everyone or as accessible to the masses as non-rational (e.g. cultic or dogmatic) forms of "spirituality"; unlike religions, however, philosophy has been indispensible for thinkers and poets, teachers and judges in every complex society.

A society without pain, suffering, disease, wars, poverty or even death.

The angle of my question is not aimed at the human obstacles of achieving such a civilisation or whether it’s technologically possible but rather whether it’s philosophically possible.

What would Joy feel like without pain, what would riches mean without poverty or what would health mean without sickness. What would life mean without death?

To live in a society where we were incapable of experiencing such things as unhappiness, sadness, pain would be the same as being colour blind to the complete palette of human emotion of what truly makes us human.

For this reason I don’t think Utopia is possible as life is about opposites ying and yang otherwise it would just be all yang and without ying. All black or all white. But what do you think ? — kindred

Every single aspect of life involves only one thing really, free will. This free will is the infinitely precarious order/chaos balance. If the universe and all aspects of it were not infinitely balanced on this single point, free will, choice, would not have the strength to move things, to choose. But everything moves and vibrates back and forth along the balance. The order/chaos balance is EVERYTHING.

So, perfection, or Utopia, they are synonymous is the goal of the universe. It is seemingly impossible. But that is only precisely because it is the most improbable thing in all of existence.

The SEEMING nature of this impossibility is not really relevant. Pragmatism is an approach to the perfect that stresses order as the right path. Idealism is an approach to the perfect that stresses chaos as the right path.

Order as a concept and meta emotion is ruled by one emotion (and there are only three emotions), and that is fear.

Chaos as a concept, synonymous with freedom, is ruled by one emotion (and there are only three emotions), and that is desire.

The balance is aided by the 'hidden' emotion of anger. Anger literally causes all of reality to exist by its tension against fear and desire. This possibly perfect balance defines a straight-line path to objective moral truth (perfection) or the GOOD.

So your post emphasizes a failed immoral point of view, in my opinion. You fail in both ways at the same time, the order way and the chaos way. That is to say you lessen the burden of moral duty by appealing to the great sin of moderation.

Moderation is a tacit acceptance of the balance needed for wisdom, but lacking in the awareness of the hidden third emotion, anger.

Real wisdom requires two very distinct facets to be defined properly. These are balance and maximalization. So, to be wiser and wiser, to approach perfection, we must increase fear, anger, and desire; all three; at the same time.

Perfection is the POSSIBLE and end result, the purpose, of the entire universe. It is the GOOD. So the GOOD is not the enemy of the perfect, finally. They are instead synonymous if wisdom is earned.

Moderation is an appeal to the sin of laziness. It is entirely understandable, and we are all afflicted by this delusion to varying degrees. Moral advancement, advancement towards perfection, is always the single hardest choice a person can make. That is a tautology. So, of course, many and most will denigrate the infinite effort required of us to pursue such a course. No matter where we are on the moral scale of progress towards perfection, the next moral step will be one that requires MORE effort than anything else we have ever done previously, by definition.

That is why moral progress and Utopia are so hard to envision and believe in.

But remember, please, not to be a fool.

Perfection-aiming IS NOT perfection-expectation. - me

That is my favorite self-quote. It shows us that the only moral aim is the perfect. And it also shows us that consequentialism is a lie. Do your best, aim at the perfect, and fail. Do not expect the consequence to be perfection. We are all playing the LONG game here, wisely. Only deontological morality is correct. Intent is everything.

Order is dissipative and thereby a phase-transition of disorder (i.e. chaos). Re: entropy. Also, the universe has a direction (i.e. thermal/cosmic equilibrium aka "balance"), not a "goal"; and "perfection" is not a/the "moral goal" but the dream of "the Good" that paralyzes – excuses failure at – actually doing good (i.e. preventing and reducing disvalues as much as practically possible aka "negative consequentialism"). 'Utopias' are mostly just thought-experiments (i.e. counterfactual what-ifs, forecasts, crises, etc) used to critique real world social systems in order to provoke public reasoning about alternatives and reforms which might prevent or reduce structural disvalues (e.g. injustices, inequities). Btw, "intention", like mere "thoughts & prayers", is mostly solipsistic (pace Kan't) and contra (Peircean-Deweyan) pragmatism.

In absolute numbers — Tarskian

Absolute numbers is irrelevant. The "most atheist country" refers to percentage. India has one quarter of a billion Muslims and yet no one would say Indian is one of the most Muslim countries.

Then your claim was misleading. — AmadeusD

He does that on purpose.

I don't really know what you're getting at here. — AmadeusD

After being called out on his nonsense, he changes the topic and starts rambling about something completely unrelated. He does that every time. It is a smoke and screens tactic but not a very smart one.

Order is dissipative and thereby a phase-transition of disorder (i.e. chaos). Re: entropy. — 180 Proof

I disagree. My disagreement is based on what I am referring to as order, which may or may not have a relationship with your reference (I believe) to dynamical systems.

Order is, in fact, conservative, and clearly so. That is to say the order of the universe ... probably ... answers favorably, compares favorably, to a Poincare recurrence theorem respecting effectively idempotent behavior. Big bang, expansion, (whatever happens next), some type of collapse or reunification, Big Bang again. Of course we cannot know one way or another, so I am not holding my breath to prove this. The belief is all I have.

I am only really speaking of order and chaos as emotions, and these translate then to fear and desire respectively.

Order is clearly conservative. Chaos is dissipative.

Order integrates society and people. Chaos disintegrates them. I would say that COMMON sense shows this is very true. Although I would also say that colloquially 'common sense' is most often just a subset of Pragmatism, order-centric beliefs and points of view.

Also, the universe has a direction (i.e. thermal/cosmic equilibrium aka "balance"), not a "goal"; — 180 Proof

That is your assertion/belief. And I might point out that quibbling about the philosophical difference between 'direction' and 'goal' is rather disingenuous, and classical order-apology (my term). The terms are effectively synonymous. It, order-apology, means the speaker is too caught up in the trapped and circular sub order set rather than also embracing equal parts of chaos and thus able to escape any sub order trap excepting only the final order, objective truth. This subset at least appears conservative. To have a meaningful span of time before recurrence, order must be stronger within the system. This means of course that a higher amplitude of chaos/desire is required to break that cycle and return the trapped energy to the external order. The final external order is only perfection.

and "perfection" is not a/the "moral goal" but the dream of "the Good" that paralyzes – excuses failure at – actually doing good (i.e. preventing and reducing disvalues as much as practically possible aka "negative consequentialism"). — 180 Proof

I disagree again. My belief is that the entire universe has as a rule, the only rule really, causing all others, that everything in it should strive towards perfection, which can in the simplest sense be thought of as transcendence or unity plus. The plus part is what allows for transcendence to the next dimensional plane of intent. And if intent is not the verb/object of the new dimension, then it is integrated in some fashion with intent.

Further and quite obviously, the dream of the GOOD does not paralyze nor excuse failure but does indeed forgive it. We all err in choice. Every aspect of the universe errs in choice. Amid these infinite errors awareness is gained as only one virtue. Over time the clear goal/direction is towards that same perfection. What else would be the goal? You say only entropy? It is my contention that life as we know it goes the other way to balance entropy by coalescing it back into order. What we call life is a misnomer because the entire universe is alive or contains the seeds of life via free will and choice. But the increase of that moral agency is indeed the thing that will overcome entropy and stop what we now in ignorance fear, the unknown unanswerable mysteries that only SEEM to be sending us all into chaos.

'Utopias' are mostly just thought-experiments (i.e. counterfactual what-ifs, forecasts, crises, etc) used to critique real world social systems in order to provoke public reasoning about alternatives and reforms which might prevent or reduce structural disvalues (e.g. injustices, inequities). — 180 Proof

We agree on this point. But it takes nothing from my argument so there is no need to counter it nor disagree.

Btw, "intention", like mere "thoughts & prayers", is mostly solipsistic (pace Kan't) and contra (Peircean-Deweyan) pragmatism. — 180 Proof

I disagree. And over time it will be proven that intent at all levels, those intents driving hard action and reforms, AND the seemingly ephemeral 'thoughts and prayers' all have an effect. These 'thoughts and prayers' are tidal forces expressing the highest most effervescent form of sentiment and will of ALL. We are not yet evolved enough to sense the consequences from these efforts so we tend to scoff at such efforts. But my model of belief suggests they are the seed of a greater will to power. Just like imagination they do effect change even now and again obviously so. The more these practices are repeated and the will fortified within the ALL-self of the universe, the more and more they reinforce harder action/intents and help to cause them. In time the relative stability of this phase of moral agency (current human limits and such) will disintegrate because the desire will rise up and break the limits. Its all around us the wish for magic and superpowers and it is NOT going away. It will intensify until it is manifested.

That is the march towards perfection and the GOOD, by intent.

And that wonderful lifestyle is open to all the 712 million people who subsist under $2.15 a day.
Not one frickin' clue!

And that wonderful lifestyle is open to all the 712 million people who subsist under $2.15 a day.
Not one frickin' clue! — Vera Mont

That is not a particularly fair question.

So, for a starters, according to you, people should not seek to improve their own lives because there are other people who are poor? So, in your view, everyone should be poor, because that is only fair, and that is supposedly going to help the poor. Misery loves company, I guess?

In my opinion, it works exactly the other way around.

It is only by improving your own life first that you could ever get into a position in which you can help others.

Furthermore, the internet is the great equalizer.

https://loadproof.com/internet-as-the-great-equalizer/

Internet has enabled smart, intelligent, talented people all over the world. It has created a door for those who aren’t in large metropolitan areas and first world countries. Anybody with a computer and an internet connection could become an entrepreneur and participate in the global economy. The internet enables wealth to flow from higher levels to lower levels and make things a little more equal.

The internet does not bring equality of outcome but it does bring to an important extent equality of opportunity. Of course, this won't be true for people who do not believe it. If you do not believe that the internet is an endless source,of opportunities, then it obviously isn't ... for you.

So, for a starters, according to you, people should not seek to improve their own lives because there are other people who are poor? — Tarskian

Seek to, sure. Options available at the bottom of society: nothing even remotely as you so quaintly depict. All you need is faith? Get real!

Options available at the bottom of society. — Vera Mont

Options on the internet are exactly the same wherever you are. People in rural Zimbabwe have the same options as you. That is why the internet is the great equalizer.

Most people copy other people. They are not capable of charting their own course. That is one major reason why they run around in circles. It is not that opportunities do not exist. These people are just not interested in them. They will only get interested in them when they can copy someone else seizing exactly that opportunity. This is not a problem related their poverty. This is a problem related to their incapacity to be self-directed. That is also why most people can only work for other people. They would not be able to work for themselves because they strongly prefer to wait for someone else to take the initiative.

In fact, this is normal. Humanity naturally operates in groups, i.e. roving gangs. Humans have a preference for following the leader, not as badly as cattle does, but still markedly so. That is why most people are employees. Most people will always be. They are uncomfortable being self-employed. They are uncomfortable building a business and employing other people. It is simply human nature. In humanity, maybe one person out of ten is self-directed. That is already better than with cattle, where I suspect that at most one out of hundred is.

All you need is faith? Get real! — Vera Mont

You misunderstand how it works.

Of course, it is not just because you believe that you can do it, that you necessarily can. However, it is certainly because you do not believe that you can do it, that you cannot.

You are probably waiting for someone, in order to just copy the details of his winning strategy. The problem is that he is not waiting for you to copy him. It would benefit you, but what's in it for him?

They do, like it or not. And vice versa. But the influence of each on each is so diluted by numbers that it makes no discernible ripple in our personal decision-making. — Vera Mont

Clearly the collective efforts of procreation, government formation, and economic activity has all contributed to the 'YES MORE OF THIS!" side of the equation. Pessimism takes a different view. Can you fight "City Hall"? No, but sometimes it is the fight that matters most.

(I believe)

The belief is all I have.

I am only really speaking of order and chaos as emotions ...

I would say that COMMON sense shows this is very true. 

My belief is that the entire universe has as a rule ...

... the seemingly ephemeral 'thoughts and prayers' all have an effect. 

... my model of belief suggests ... — Chet Hawkins

You're entitled to "believe" whatever you like but these "beliefs" are not supported by either corroborable evidence or valid arguments. You're merely rationalizing, not reasoning – preaching, not philosophizing. We don't even disagree, Chet; we're playing different games, talking past one another.

the philosophical difference between 'direction' and 'goal' is rather disingenuous ... The terms are effectively synonymous.

No they aren't. For example, dying is not life's goal, only life's direction; thus, it's incoherent (or "disingenuous") to conflate them.

It seems to me, the same thing applies to the Christian conception of heaven — Relativist

It did occur to me that there are great similarities between the utopia I have described in my op and the idea of Christian heaven.

The elimination of those negatives in society would yield such a paradise, you could have heaven on earth so to speak but I think it would take away from the wholeness of the human condition to be deprived of such emotion even if unnecessary such as that of sadness for how could sadness exist in heaven, if you could have almost anything without any true struggle.

In any sufficiently advanced civilisation where basic things like hunger were eliminated and food was on tap just like we have access to knowledge today in an instant via the internet. Unimaginable 200 years ago, yet the rate of progress is such that we perhaps could eliminate hunger or even diseases or illnesses like cancer and greatly increase our longevity we would be faced with the ultimate human challenge which is the outbreak of wars between different nation states.

Such states and its citizens would be required to be collectively enlightened to avoid wars by being more collaborative than confrontational when it came to differing interests. In addition a world government level of politics rather than nation states would eventually lead to a great minimisation of wars if not completely making them redundant.

You can achieve peace, first of all, by rejecting every rational answer to this question. Next, you can pick a spiritual answer which adequately appeases your need to know; which you never truly will anyway. — Tarskian

An enlightened society without nation state politics but rather one world government, something like USA but on a global level would reduce wars or wars within itself because the interests of the whole would align with the interests of the individual we could eliminate wars entirely.

That's not what Utopia is. Utopia is just a country where you can live, be happy, sad, silly, creative, responsible, angry, competent, honest, amorous or whatever combination of traits, abilities, moods and potentials you are, without other people bullying you, taking your stuff, forcing their beliefs on you, refusing you help, or preventing you from making your best possible contribution to the welfare and happiness of your neighbours. — Vera Mont

A utopia could in theory be isolated from the rest of the world where a sufficiently advanced civilisation has no need to impose its ideals on other nation states and sufficiently strong enough to be unbothered by wars waged on it by other nation states or actors. In a society where the basic human needs are easily met with ease would be the starting point of such a civilisation.

You’re right about sadness you could be sad in such a civilisation but with most reasons being eliminated from the equation for such emotion to be felt such as: not losing your loved ones in a society where death was made redundant and everyone was equal in all aspects of the word such as physical appearance, wealth, health etc then the reasons for sadness would be far and few between but they would be there for example the experience of heartbreak due to the breakdown of a healthy relationship.

Part of the problem with utopian visions is that people differ in what they believe should be in scope. One man’s utopia is another man’s stifling authoritarian state. — Tom Storm

If this obstacle was overcome by everyone in that society having the same vision of what a utopia should be then then there would be no need for authoritarianism, in fact it would be the opposite of what utopia entails. Perhaps in such a society the role of government would be minimal although laws would still exist albeit they would be irrelevant as this society would compromise of enlightened citizens who know right from wrong without laws telling them so.

Such states and its citizens would be required to be collectively enlightened to avoid wars by being more collaborative than confrontational when it came to differing interests. In addition a world government level of politics rather than nation states would eventually lead to a great minimisation of wars if not completely making them redundant. — kindred

War can be made redundant - along with the unimaginable waste of resources we currently plough into armaments, spying, vehicles and other expensive with no purpose but destruction and no possible fate but obsolescence. Not to mention the people, lands and infrastructure wars destroy. Of course, to accomplish that, a world government would be required with the power to arbitrate disagreements and a compact, mobile enforcement agency made up of armed forces from all member nations. (That in itself - an international fraternity of global police - would help to cement lasting peace.)
The human rights set out by he UN could work fine. Add mutual assistance among nations and a bar against oppressors who seek to curtail other people's rights, plus universal general education at least to Gr. 10 level, heavy on life science.

Since almost no three people can agree on whether or how such a world government should be constituted or how it should function, the whole thing will have to be handed over to a sophisticated AI program with control of the energy and a prime directive to promote the welfare of the planet, including humankind. (I know, lots of people would scream about that, too.)

A utopia could in theory be isolated from the rest of the world where a sufficiently advanced civilisation has no need to impose its ideals on other nation states and sufficiently strong enough to be unbothered by wars waged on it by other nation states or actors — kindred

On another planet, maybe.

Since almost no three people can agree on whether or how such a world government should be constituted or how it should function, the whole thing will have to be handed over to a sophisticated AI program with control of the energy and a prime directive to promote the welfare of the planet, including humankind. (I know, lots of people would scream about that, too.) — Vera Mont

Post agreement utopia where everyone in that society has the same criteria, ideal and vision where the only disagreements would come prior to its founding then AI would not be necessary in that regard. Yet this paints a static ideal of what a utopia is, for it is after all a perfect society without the need for a political class because those ideals would be entrenched in every individual.

Perpetual peace would be the norm and wars would be anti-utopian and unnecessary because in such a society there would be nothing to disagree on when it come to this fundamental such as perpetual peace.

There could however be disagreements but they would be constructive or philosophical disagreements such as that found in academia rather than political because there would no longer be a need for politics.

A society without pain, suffering, disease, wars, poverty or even death. — kindred

Pain and pleasure come together so we cannot have one without another one. They are related to our physiology and without them, we don't learn anything. Suffering is a broad concept. We can get rid of a part but not all of it. We can get rid of most of the diseases in the far distant future. Wars and poverty are our faults. We can avoid them when we are wise enough. Death is unavoidable though.

The angle of my question is not aimed at the human obstacles of achieving such a civilisation or whether it’s technologically possible but rather whether it’s philosophically possible. — kindred

Technological advancement without ethical advancement leads to disasters.

What would Joy feel like without pain, what would riches mean without poverty or what would health mean without sickness. What would life mean without death? — kindred

Joy and sadness come together. Richness and poverty are our fault.

For this reason I don’t think Utopia is possible as life is about opposites ying and yang otherwise it would just be all yang and without ying. All black or all white. But what do you think ? — kindred

What do you mean with Utopia?

An enlightened society without nation state politics but rather one world government, something like USA but on a global level would reduce wars or wars within itself because the interests of the whole would align with the interests of the individual we could eliminate wars entirely. — kindred

Very correct!

A utopia could in theory be isolated from the rest of the world where a sufficiently advanced civilisation has no need to impose its ideals on other nation states and sufficiently strong enough to be unbothered by wars waged on it by other nation states or actors. In a society where the basic human needs are easily met with ease would be the starting point of such a civilisation. — kindred

Very correct!

If this obstacle was overcome by everyone in that society having the same vision of what a utopia should be then then there would be no need for authoritarianism, in fact it would be the opposite of what utopia entails. Perhaps in such a society the role of government would be minimal although laws would still exist albeit they would be irrelevant as this society would compromise of enlightened citizens who know right from wrong without laws telling them so. — kindred

Very correct!

An enlightened society without nation state politics but rather one world government, something like USA but on a global level would reduce wars or wars within itself because the interests of the whole would align with the interests of the individual we could eliminate wars entirely. — kindred

I do not believe that it is possible to eliminate wars entirely, just like it will not be possible to eliminate the mating season in which male animals fight over mating rights. Lions and other predators will also remain territorial forever and prevent other predators from hunting in their territory. Competition over territory and females, i.e. the very origin itself of war, is simply built into our biological firmware. Civilization is just a very thin veneer on top of the brutal truth. Male animals crave war.

Post agreement utopia where everyone in that society has the same criteria, ideal and vision where the only disagreements would come prior to its founding then AI would not be necessary in that regard. — kindred

No, that will take two generations of contentment and new horizons. The first fifty years or so would be full of strife, claims and counterclaims, old feuds and grudges, gripes about lost kingdoms, redistributed wealth, eroded superiorities, and the great big headache (even for AI) of placing all the displaced people and establishing universal reproductive rights for women.

Yet this paints a static ideal of what a utopia is, for it is after all a perfect society without the need for a political class because those ideals would be entrenched in every individual. — kindred

What makes you think it would static. People don't cease to aspire, tinker and imagine just because they have have enough to eat and up-to-date vaccinations. People don't stop getting on one another's nerves, bickering and jockeying for advantage just because they're not allowed to subjugate others. People don't stop being human when they're happy - but at least they behave like better people.

Perpetual peace would be the norm and wars would be anti-utopian and unnecessary because in such a society there would be nothing to disagree on when it come to this fundamental such as perpetual peace. — kindred

Peace between nations is generally desired by most individuals. While some enjoy the idea of killing (they're not the ones recruited for the peace-keeping force), nobody likes trenches, field rations and having their limbs blown off.
Internal disagreements wouldn't be political, but there is still plenty to disagree about - the state of your neighbour's yard, his taste in music, the behaviour of his child and dog, the way he cut off, willy-nilly, a branch of your cherry tree just because it hung over his gazebo, and then, of course, how he stole the girl you were sweet on in middle school....

There could however be disagreements but they would be constructive or philosophical disagreements such as that found in academia rather than political because there would no longer be a need for politics. — kindred

Lively international conference on all kinds of academic subjects - yes! - and the way forward in technology and how best to deal with the detritus of climate change damage.

establishing universal reproductive rights for women — Vera Mont

As long as society agrees that men have no obligation to provide for women who only recognize that they have rights but do not accept any obligation, everything should be fine. If women have no obligations, then men shouldn't have any either. Everybody rows his own boat, while people with only rights and no obligations cannot sit in mine.

Civilization is just a very thin veneer on top of the brutal truth. Male animals crave war. — Tarskian

I am all for cynicism, but when it is based on faulty assumptions it can be quite dangerous.

Human males do not crave war. If this was the case there would be more war. I think it would perhaps be more fitting to suggest that humans crave conflict rather than war. If we craved war so much then we would pretty much all be dead by now via self-annihilation. As history has shown we are more prone to negotiate to prolong our survival because mutually assured destruction is just that.

Human males do not crave war. If this was the case there would be more war. — I like sushi

The world is continuously at war in various places. Wars don't really stop. They just shift location. There are wars going on right now. We conveniently ignore them because we can.

Packs of wild dogs fight with each other for territorial hunting rights and mating rights. Prides of lions do that too. As humans, we are good at inventing feeble excuses for doing exactly the same.

As history has shown we are more prone to negotiate to prolong our survival because mutually assured destruction is just that. — I like sushi

Of course, we negotiate too. But then again, war is deeply ingrained in our biological nature. We will simply never stop doing it.

Is A Utopian Society Possible? — kindred

IFF, imo, it's a post-scarcity, philanthropic AGI-managed (automated), sprawl-free municipality (arcology) ... ideally, an O'Neill/McKendree cylinder (asteroid terrarium). :nerd:

The world is continuously at war in various places. Wars don't really stop. They just shift location. There are wars going on right now. We conveniently ignore them because we can. — Tarskian

The truth is we can SEE them more now than before. There is far less war today than 100 years ago. We have been gradually becoming more stable.

The way you put your point across you made it sound like if you looked out of the average window you would see death and pillaging on at least a yearly basis. This just doesn't happen anymore in most corners of the world.

Just because we have an aggressive element to our psychological make-up it does not define who we are. War is something we do, it is not anywhere near a defining part of the vast majority of human lives today.

There is far less war today than 100 years ago. We have been gradually becoming more stable. — I like sushi

I don't believe that.

Sovereign nations will always fight each other. It is a side effect of being sovereign. There is no referee for conflicts between sovereign nations. If there were, these nations would not be sovereign.

The way you put your point across you made it sound like if you looked out of the average window you would see death and pillaging on at least a yearly basis. This just doesn't happen anymore in most corners of the world. — I like sushi

The current situation is not better than in 1924 or in 1824:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conflicts_in_2024

I believe that it is preferable to accept the truth about war. It is simply in our nature. If there is no reason for war, we'll conveniently invent one. Furthermore, there is an infinite number of unsettled disputes patiently waiting for their turn to erupt into bloodshed.

Just because we have an aggressive element to our psychological make-up it does not define who we are. War is something we do, it is not anywhere near a defining part of the vast majority of human lives today. — I like sushi

We introduced specialization thousands of years ago already.

On the one side, the farmers were sick and tired of roving gangs who stole their harvests. On the other side, not everybody wanted to fight. Some farmers just wanted to farm. So, in exchange for a share in the harvest, the farmers appointed their own gangsters to take on the other gangs.

If we don't do any of the fighting by ourselves, that is because we pay other people to do it for us. Someone has to do all of the killing required to protect the harvests. Apparently, it is just not you. In that case, you instead pay for someone else to do the killing for you.

You see things a bit like people who eat enjoy eating a steak but who swear that they would never kill an animal.

Yeah, but that is because you pay someone else to do the slaughtering and butchering of cows and other ruminants.

I personally don't have a problem with that. I am perfectly aware of the hidden truth behind the sizzling juicy steak on my plate. We are clearly carnivore. We kill other animals to feed on. So, if need be, just give me an axe, and I'll do what it takes to unceremoniously finish things off.

As long as society agrees that men have no obligation to provide for women who only recognize that they have rights but do not accept any obligation, everything should be fine. If women have no obligations, then men shouldn't have any either. Everybody rows his own boat, while people with only rights and no obligations cannot sit in mine. — Tarskian

Why should women in a good society need men to 'provide for' them? Every member of a society has obligations, but they do not include submitting one's body to another's will.